R v SD

Case [2025] NSWDC 174 9 May 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SD [2025] NSWDC 174
Hearing dates: 09 May 2025
Date of orders: 09 May 2025
Decision date: 09 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Everson SC, DCJ
Decision:
(1)            The offender is convicted of each of the 19 offences for which he was found guilty by the jury on 27 February 2025.
(2)            The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.
(3)            The non-parole period will commence on 19 November 2024 and will expire on 18 November 2039.
(4)            The balance of term of 5 years will commence on 19 November 2039 and will expire on 18 November 2044.
(5)            The offender will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Plessis v R [2024] NSWCCA 164
R v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 354
R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184
Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 15
Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203
Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176
R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
Shannon v R [2006] NSWCCA 39
R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28
R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (NSW) (Crown)
SD (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms F Vella (for the Crown)
Mr T Bicanic (for the Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (for the Crown)
Mr J Walford from Penrith Criminal Law Centre (for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00362052
Publication restriction: There are prohibitions on the publication of matters directly or indirectly identifying the victims in these proceedings.

JUDGMENT on sentence

Introduction

There are prohibitions on the publication of matters directly or indirectly identifying the victims in these proceedings. Those prohibitions will be facilitated by the use of pseudonyms. The offender will also be referred to as "SD". SD's daughter, the victim of each offence will also be referred to as "GD".
On 17 February 2025, SD was called to trial on an indictment that contained 22 counts. Each count alleged an offence of sexual misconduct by him towards GD. The prosecution has framed its case by reference to ten alleged incidents. The ninth incident was said to be the basis for counts 18, 19 and 20. On 25 February 2025, a verdict of not guilty by judicial direction was returned on counts 18, 19 and 20.
On 27 February 2025, SD was found guilty by the jury of each of the remaining 19 counts on the indictment and is consequently to be sentenced on:

Four offences, being the 4th, 6th, 8th and 11th counts, of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years, contrary to sub-section 66A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, and for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life and the prescribed standard non-parole period…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v SD

Details

AGLC: R v SD [2025] NSWDC 174
Case: [2025] NSWDC 174
Decision Date: 09 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SD involved the defendant, SD, who was charged with 19 separate offences. The nature of the dispute was whether SD was guilty of the various charges, which included serious criminal activity. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of a state within Australia. The defendant was found guilty of all charges by a jury on 27 February 2025.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for SD, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences. The legal issues included the appropriate length of the sentence, the imposition of a non-parole period, and the eligibility for parole. The court considered the severity of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and any mitigating factors presented by the defence.

The court, in its sentencing, concluded that the appropriate punishment for the defendant was a total of 20 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 15 years. This non-parole period was set to begin on 19 November 2024 and end on 18 November 2039. The remaining five years of the sentence would then commence on the same date as the expiry of the non-parole period, expiring on 18 November 2044. The court also ruled that the defendant would be eligible for parole at the end of the non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The offender is convicted of each of the 19 offences for which he was found guilty by the jury on 27 February 2025.

(2) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years.

(3) The non-parole period will commence on 19 November 2024 and will expire on 18 November 2039.

(4) The balance of term of 5 years will commence on 19 November 2039 and will expire on 18 November 2044.

(5) The offender will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

R v SD [2025] NSWDC 174

Most Recent Citation

Director of Public Prosecutions v Hartman [2015] VCC 1018

Cases Citing This Decision

Tori v The King [2024] VSCA 162
Citation 1 (Para 8)

…r, the weight to be given to a person’s good character will vary according to the particular circumstances of the case. … [30] SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 494 [30].…
Heels v The King [2024] VSCA 133
Citation 2 (Para 11)

…e circumstances of the applicant’s custody; and the influence exerted by Cullinan-Smayle over the applicant’s offending. [24]See SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 494 [28]–[30] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA); Wakim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 301, [43] (Redlich JA and Beale AJA). Cf DPP v Smith [2010] VSCA 215, [23] (…
Moran v The King [2024] VSCA 13
Citation 3 (Para 4)

…to take into account factual material not in evidence without notice to the parties’.[36] [35](1994) 119 ALR 206, 210; [1994] HCA 66. [36](2013) 39 VR 487, 496 [37] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA); [2013] VSCA 133.…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Gibson [2023] VCC 2360
Citation 4

…lliams ’) [2021] VSCA 35 [18] (Priest and Kyrou JJA). [48] [2021] VSCA 35 [49] Williams [18] (Priest and Kyrou JJA) citing SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 494 [30] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA) (‘ SD ’) and Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267, 278 [33]–[34] (McHugh J). 93I also must be careful to not reduce the…
Fenner v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 48
Citation 5 (Para 47)

…In SD v R (2013) 39 VR 487; [2013] VSCA 133; 229 A Crim R 580, a child sexual abuse case, the sentencing judge had determined that the offender had exploited his good character to allow the offending to occur, and held that less weight should be given to the good character evidence. The Victorian Court of Appeal sa…
Page (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 364
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…form of double punishment as identified in cases such as SD v The Queen (‘ SD’ )[35] and Torrefranca v The Queen (‘ Torrefranca’ ).[36] [35](2013) 39 VR 487 (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA). [36][2021] VSCA 157 (McLeish and Osborn JJA).…
Konidaris v The Queen [2021] VSCA 309
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…t SD was denied procedural fairness by the judge’s resort to a body of material that she had not raised with counsel in the course of the plea. [39](2013) 39 VR 487; [2013] VSCA 133 (‘ SD ’).…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hendley [2021] VCC 1777
Citation 8

…u JJA). [51] [2021] VSCA 35 ( Williams ). [52] Williams [18] (Priest and Kyrou JJA) citing SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 494 [30] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA) (‘ SD ’) and Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267, 278 [33]–[34] (McHugh J). 152I also must be careful to not reduce the weight I give to this factor,…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ha [2021] VCC 1640
Citation 9

…r v The Queen [2010] VSCA 338; Rodriguez v DPP (Cth) (2013) 40 VR 436; Marasco v The Queen [2016] VSCA 85; SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487; Torrefranca v The Queen [2021] VSCA 157; R v Rumpf (1987) A Crim R 64; Hook v Ralphs (1987) 45 SASR 529; Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; DPP v Ellis (2005) 11 VR 287; R v…
Kelly v The Queen [2021] VSCA 216
Citation 10 (Para 1)

…unity for further submissions to be made’.[33] [32]The appellant relied upon Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466, 473, and SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 496 [39]. [33]See DPP (Cth) v Boyles (a pseudonym) [2016] VSCA 267, [38].…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Fogarty [2021] VSC 392
Citation 11

…[43] SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487 (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA) (‘ SD ’).…
Torrefranca v The Queen [2021] VSCA 157
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…er in aggravation and a matter diminishing the mitigatory weight to be afforded to the applicant’s prior good character. [17]See SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 494 [31] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA) (‘ SD ’).…
Williams (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 35
Citation 13 (Para 1)

…e ‘otherwise good character’ of an offender being one of them. [12] Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 (‘ Ryan ’). [13] SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 494 [30] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA). [14] Ryan, 278 [33]–[34] (McHugh J).…
Jackson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 95
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…creased terror arising from the uncharged offences, as the judge did here.[78] [78]See, for example, on a related question SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487 at 491[17]-492[18]. But contrast, in different circumstances again, Harington v The Queen [2017] VSCA 307 at [24]-[28] ( per Maxwell P and Redlich JA) and [65]-[…
Warne v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 12
Citation 15 (Para 16)

…59 NSWLR 431 at [80], [89]-[90]. [2] R v Skaf (2004) 60 NSWLR 86 at [278]-[286]. [3] R v Thompson [2011] 1 WLR 200; [2010] EWCA Crim 1623. [4] SD v R (2013) 39 VR 487 at [50]-[52].…
In the Matter of Kornucopia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] VSC 802
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…sult. [61]Ibid [23]-[26]; Casey [2015] WASC 92 [12]-[15] (Corboy J); Rozenes [1996] 1 VR 320, 322-3 (Tadgell and Callaway JJA and Crockett AJA); SD (2013) 39 VR 487 [35]-[36], [49] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA). [62] Concrete (2006) 231 ALR 663, 710 [179] (Callinan J).…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Papaioannou [2019] VCC 1978
Citation 17

…56 – Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354 – Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 – SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487 Sentence: $3000 fine without conviction…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Versace [2019] VCC 1913
Citation 18

…s Cited: Barbaro v The Queen (2012) 226 A Crim R 354 – Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 – SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487 – Markovic v The Queen (2010) 30 VR 589 – R v Nixon (1993) 66 A Crim R 83 – DPP v Felton (2007) 16 VR 214 – R v Grossi (2008) 23 VR 500 – Saxon v The Queen [2014] VSCA 296 – DPP v Frewstal (2…
Ivanov v The Queen [2019] VSCA 219
Citation 19 (Para 1)

…her because of a partial lack of memory or because of any suggested belated realisation of the nature of the offences he had committed. [46] SD (2013) 39 VR 487, 495 [33]; Ristevski v The Queen (2011) 31 VR 193, 195 [9]. [47] SD (2013) 39 VR 487, 495 [33]; see also R v Mielicki (1994) 73 A Crim R 72, 78–80; R v Duo…
Elsayed v The Queen [2019] VSCA 113
Citation 20

…[8]Ibid 208–9 [64]–[65] (citations omitted); see also SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 496 [37]–[38].…
Anderson v The Queen [2019] VSCA 42
Citation 21 (Para 1)

…role period of 11 years. [26]We respectfully adopt the views expressed by Kaye J in R v Flaherty (No 2) (2008) 19 VR 305. See also SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 501–2 [63] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA); Youil v The Queen [2013] VSCA 228, [36] (Priest JA); DPP v Cooper [2018] VSCA 21, [56] (Weinberg, Priest an…
Christopher Russell v Wisewould Mahony Lawyers [2018] VSCA 125
Citation 22 (Para 1)

…he judge.[36] [36]See International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319, 381 [146] (Heydon J); S D v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 496 [37]–[39]; Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd (2013) 252 CLR 38, 100 [157] (Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ).…
DPP v Cooper [2018] VSCA 21
Citation 23 (Para 1)

…fixed a non-parole period of 30 years. [31]We endorse the views expressed by Kaye J in R v Flaherty (No 2) (2008) 19 VR 305. See also SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 501–2 [63] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA); Youil v The Queen [2013] VSCA 228, [36] (Priest JA); cf [40] (Neave JA).…
Wakim v The Queen [2016] VSCA 301
Citation 24 (Para 1)

…cter and the extra-curial punishment he had suffered as a consequence of his breach of trust. [5] Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487.…
Bruno Strangio v The Queen [2016] VSCA 286
Citation 25

…y [1998] 2 VR 517, 520, 523; R v Roberts [2000] VSCA 46, [13]; R v Grillo [2003] VSCA 143, [15]–[17]; R v Lowe [2009] VSCA 268, [16]–[18]; SD v R (2013) 39 VR 487, 496 [39].…
DPP (Cth) v Garside [2016] VSCA 74
Citation 26

…[125] SD v R (2013) 39 VR 487 (‘ SD ’).…
Hananeia v Secretary, Attorney-General's Department [2016] FCAFC 36
Citation 27 (Para 11)

…cts intervene, those latter acts may be regarded as the immediate cause of the injuries. See further SD v the Queen (2013) 39 VR 487 at [16] (Ashley, Redlich and Priest JJA) and Berichon v the Queen (2013) 40 VR 490 where, in the absence of any consideration of Kaplan , Robson AJA construed the use of “direct” in s…
Luna (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2016] VSCA 10
Citation 28 (Para 1)

…records and then inform themselves — as, at least, we were tacitly invited to do — by recourse to DSM-5.[14] [14]See SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487.…
R v Raimundo [2015] VSC 550
Citation 29 (Para 1)

…ll be conspicuous from my declaration under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act .[2] [2]See R v Flaherty (No 2) (2008) 19 VR 305; SD v The Queen (2013) 39 VR 487, 501–2 [63] (n 50).…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hartman [2015] VCC 1018
Citation 30

…(2007) 15 VR 497; Lucino v R [2015] VSCA 173; Cole (pseudonym) v R [2015] VSCA 44; Sherritt v R [2015] VSCA 1; Phillips v R (2012) 37 VR 594; SD v R (2013) 39 VR 487; Ryan v R (2001) 206 CLR 267; R v Verdins; R v Buckley; R v Vo (2007) 16 VR 269; Boulton v R [2014] VSCA 342; R v Merrett & Ors (2007) 37 VR 594; Rod…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Du Plessis v The King [2024] NSWCCA 164
Citation 1 (Para 57)

…(l) is concerned with the vulnerability of a class of victims rather than vulnerability arising from the circumstances of the offence: Du Plessis v R [2024] NSWCCA 164 at [58]-[60]. Those cases involving child sexual offences where sub-section 21A(2)(l) was properly applied featured a victim who was within a class o…
R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184
Citation 2 (Para 39)

…more or less serious are a more readily understandable gauge of seriousness than a label attempting to fix the matter on some notional range: R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184 and R v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 354 at [21].…
R v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 354
Citation 3 (Para 39)

…tandable gauge of seriousness than a label attempting to fix the matter on some notional range: R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184 and R v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 354 at [21].…
Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150
Citation 4 (Para 38)

…The application of such labels was the subject of comment by Beech-Jones CJ at CL (as his Honour then was) in Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 150. His Honour (with whom N Adams and Lonergan JJ agreed) said at [5], that such an approach can further the objective of transparency in sentencing. His Honour noted the effect of su…
Williams v The The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 15
Citation 5

…99 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Cases Cited: Plessis v R [2024] NSWCCA 164 R v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 354 R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184 Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 15 Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203 Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56 Shannon v R [2006] NSWCCA 39 R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289 R v…
Zhao v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 203
Citation 6 (Para 49)

…ouching involves direct contact with the skin as opposed to contact through clothing, that renders the sexual touching offence more serious: Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203 at [85]. Moreover, where the touching involves the genital region, the objective seriousness of the offending is increased: Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 20…
Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176
Citation 7 (Para 57)

…e impairment and mental health condition (see R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289 at [21]) or a deaf child with limited vocal abilities (see Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 at [55].…
R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
Citation 8 (Para 55)

…hat a finding of substantial harm would constitute double counting because the consequences of the offending are typical of such offending: R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56 at [106]. However, I am not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the injury or emotional harm caused by any of the offences was not subst…
Burchell v R [2010] NZCA 314
Citation 9 (Para 71)

…Given the offences for which he is to be sentenced, it is probable the offender will spend his time in gaol as a protection prisoner. In R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 Hunt J at 151 described as a well-known fact that child molesters are subjected to physical assaults by the inmates of regular gaols and that they…
Shannon v R [2006] NSWCCA 39
Citation 10 (Para 58)

…sly aged from 9 to 13 years of age at the time of the offending. Generally speaking, the younger the victim the more serious the offence: Shannon v R [2006] NSWCCA 39 at [28]-[29]. So, in the 1st through to the 11th count, GD was at the top of the applicable age range of 10 years for the offence. In the 22nd count…
R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289
Citation 11 (Para 57)

…ctim who was within a class of people that requires protection, such as a child with cognitive impairment and mental health condition (see R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289 at [21]) or a deaf child with limited vocal abilities (see Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 at [55].…
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28
Citation 12 (Para 71)

…es of regular gaols and that they are usually obliged to serve their sentences under heavy protective guard and often in isolation. See too R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28 by Bell J at [26].…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 82)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 40)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Non-parole Periods) Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 41)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v SD [2025] NSWDC 174
Hearing dates:	09 May 2025
Date of orders:	09 May 2025
Decision date:	09 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Everson SC, DCJ
Decision:	(1) The offender is convicted of each of the 19 offences for which he was found guilty by the jury on 27 February 2025. (2) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. (3) The non-parole period will commence on 19 November 2024 and will expire on 18 November 2039. (4) The balance of term of 5 years will commence on 19 November 2039 and will expire on 18 November 2044. (5) The offender will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Plessis v R [2024] NSWCCA 164 R v Wilson (a pseudonym) [2023] NSWDC 354 R v RE [2023] NSWCCA 184 Ragg v R [2022] NSWCCA 15 Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203 Chamseddine v R [2017] NSWCCA 176 R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56 Shannon v R [2006] NSWCCA 39 R v Boulad [2005] NSWCCA 289 R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28 R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (NSW) (Crown) SD (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms F Vella (for the Crown) Mr T Bicanic (for the Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (for the Crown) Mr J Walford from Penrith Criminal Law Centre (for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/00362052
Publication restriction:	There are prohibitions on the publication of matters directly or indirectly identifying the victims in these proceedings.